Janel Hanmer1. 1. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53726, USA. jehanmer@wisc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The SF-6D preference-based scoring system was developed several years after the SF-12 and SF-36 instruments. A method to predict SF-6D scores from information in previous reports would facilitate backwards comparisons and the use of these reports in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: This report uses data from the 2001-2003 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS), the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Survey, and the National Health Measurement Study. SF-6D scores were modeled using age, sex, mental component summary (MCS) score, and physical component summary (PCS) score from the 2002 MEPS. The resulting SF-6D prediction equation was tested with the other datasets for groups of different sizes and groups stratified by age, MCS score, PCS score, sum of MCS and PCS scores, and SF-6D score. RESULTS: The equation can be used to predict an average SF-6D score using average age, proportion female, average MCS score, and average PCS score. Mean differences between actual and predicted average SF-6D scores in out-of-sample tests was -0.001 (SF-12 version 1), -0.013 (SF-12 version 2), -0.007 (SF-36 version 1), and -0.010 (SF-36 version 2). Ninety-five percent credible intervals around these point estimates range from +/-0.045 for groups with 10 subjects to +/-0.008 for groups with more than 300 subjects. These results were consistent for a wide range of ages, MCS scores, PCS scores, sum of MCS and PCS scores, and SF-6D scores. SF-6D scores from the SF-36 and SF-12 from the same data set were found to be substantially different. CONCLUSIONS: Simple equation predicts an average SF-6D preference-based score from widely published information.
BACKGROUND: The SF-6D preference-based scoring system was developed several years after the SF-12 and SF-36 instruments. A method to predict SF-6D scores from information in previous reports would facilitate backwards comparisons and the use of these reports in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: This report uses data from the 2001-2003 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS), the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Survey, and the National Health Measurement Study. SF-6D scores were modeled using age, sex, mental component summary (MCS) score, and physical component summary (PCS) score from the 2002 MEPS. The resulting SF-6D prediction equation was tested with the other datasets for groups of different sizes and groups stratified by age, MCS score, PCS score, sum of MCS and PCS scores, and SF-6D score. RESULTS: The equation can be used to predict an average SF-6D score using average age, proportion female, average MCS score, and average PCS score. Mean differences between actual and predicted average SF-6D scores in out-of-sample tests was -0.001 (SF-12 version 1), -0.013 (SF-12 version 2), -0.007 (SF-36 version 1), and -0.010 (SF-36 version 2). Ninety-five percent credible intervals around these point estimates range from +/-0.045 for groups with 10 subjects to +/-0.008 for groups with more than 300 subjects. These results were consistent for a wide range of ages, MCS scores, PCS scores, sum of MCS and PCS scores, and SF-6D scores. SF-6D scores from the SF-36 and SF-12 from the same data set were found to be substantially different. CONCLUSIONS: Simple equation predicts an average SF-6D preference-based score from widely published information.
Authors: Peter Franks; Erica I Lubetkin; Marthe R Gold; Daniel J Tancredi; Haomiao Jia Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: D G Fryback; E J Dasbach; R Klein; B E Klein; N Dorn; K Peterson; P A Martin Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1993 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Susanne Schmitz; Tatjana T Makovski; Roisin Adams; Marjan van den Akker; Saverio Stranges; Maurice P Zeegers Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Silky Chotai; Scott L Parker; J Alex Sielatycki; Ahilan Sivaganesan; Harrison F Kay; Joseph B Wick; Matthew J McGirt; Clinton J Devin Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Saku Väätäinen; Sirkka Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi; Jouko Saramies; Hannu Uusitalo; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Janne Martikainen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Alexis P Chidi; Shari Rogal; Cindy L Bryce; Michael J Fine; Chester B Good; Larissa Myaskovsky; Vinod K Rustgi; Allan Tsung; Kenneth J Smith Journal: Hepatology Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 17.425